This first half of the Kentucky Cycle was filled with death, pain, and hypocrisy. The first thing I noticed that the writer of this play is clearly working hard to argue is the violence present in the hearts of the Appalachian people. In each of the five parts to Part One someone “innocent” gets murdered. In the first one, it was an entire tribe of Native Americans along with Michael’s companion. In the second one, Morning Star’s freedom. The Homecoming: a baby girl, Michael Rowen, Joe Talbert. The list continues. It gets to the point that the viewer kind of expects a gruesome murder or backstabbing; there is no more shock factor. The fact that the viewer reaches this point speaks to the rhetoric that Schenkkan is willingly spreading: that the people of Appalachia have hate in their hearts and blood on their hands. Murder in Appalachian culture isn’t just a moral stain on their fancy Confederate uniforms (or the horse feather in the cap of righteous anger), it’s hereditary; the ability to murder has been passed down from the first pioneer who fell in love with the region to all of his descendants. Another issue that should be noted is the emphasis on the love of land that has motivated the majority of these murders. The desire for land ownership and autonomy turns seemingly innocent young men (as seen in the beginning of each play) to the poisoned hearts seen later in the same play or in subsequent plays.

Ballard attempted to argue in Back Talk that there was a difference between people who laughed at the hillbilly jokes because they believe them and those who just get them. Initially, it is difficult to understand this argument without placing that same argument in a different perspective. An equivalent argument would be if someone made a “black people be like…” joke without actually ever having known a black person versus one black person making the joke to another black person. With this new understanding, I now see exactly where she is coming from and agree with her argument. There is very clearly a difference between the two perspectives. The delicate balance of her next argument sways between whether or not buying these stereotypical products contributes to reinforcing it. Unfortunately, it does. While the person buying that product is only doing so out of sheer irony,  the person behind them is learning something from that observation. The thought then becomes “If that person who would meet the stereotype says its okay then it must be okay!” As a direct result of merely one week in this course I no longer feel comfortable buying products like the ones discussed by Ballard. Once you’ve been in the shoes of the people you used to joke about, you can no longer go back to making jokes the same old way.

Steinberg’s decision to use the Holy Bible as in introduction to her Barbie article for a variety of reasons. First of all, it reflects the primarily Christian (used here to include Catholics and Protestants) society that existed at the time of Barbie’s creation and continued into the time of Steinberg. The fact that we recognized it as a biblical allusion also speaks to the effectiveness of Steinberg’s format choice. Second, it views Barbie in a slightly exaggerated but fair religious light. Barbie dolls have taken a position as a religious icon for many across the nation. She embodies everything that society tells girls they need to be, from the body type (18) to the fulfillment of the American Dream (21), to the interactions with the “others” of the world (24). As the “standard by which all others are measured” (24) Barbie willingly takes her stance as the idol/model of young girls in the same manner that Christ is the idol/model of his followers. After all, both have books and stories written of their exploits with explicit lessons that must be drawn from each. Therefore, Steinberg’s use of the Book of Genesis as a model for her introduction effectively prepares the reader to accept her premises by revealing from the beginning the role Barbie plays in our culture.

I did not find the descriptions provided by Harney and Frost as problematic. Harney and Frost cast the culture of Appalachian civilization in a new and respectful light that had not been seen at the time (so problematic to the close-mindedness of their day, but not problematic from a more open perspective). Harney, however, did give more grace to the beautiful scenery of the Appalachians then he did to the people themselves. Describing the “indescribable awe in the presence of serene night and unbounded shadow (9),” or the way “the twilight lingers like love over a home (1)” characterized his romanticization of the topography. However, his analysis of the people, while respectful (almost as if he admired some of their cultural traits) lacked the “bigger picture” romanticism he utilizes when describing nature and that Frost uses in his cultural descriptions. This was evident in how he described the rude yet independent black woman on page 2, the simple yet admirable young life of his companion on page 4, and the credit that the young scout should have received before the battle of Jonesborough on pages 11 and 12. Frost, on the other hand, made it abundantly clear that he had obtained an incredible level of respect for Appalachian America after his first visit, explicitly contradicting the view of the modern establishment towards people “behind the times” by attacking the things that made them think they were so great. For example, his use of the Scriptures to raise Appalachian America on a moral pedestal  with the allusion to the patriarchs and how “mere illiteracy is not fatal to character.” He also recognizes what most of imperialist America didn’t: that were parts of Appalachian culture that were strong and rich and that the people there “should be encouraged to retain all that is characteristic and wholesome in their present life.”